PrisonPlanet Forum
May 19, 2013, 08:20:58 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Divinity of Doubt - Vincent Bugliosi  (Read 3805 times)
skeisler
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81



WWW
« on: May 11, 2011, 01:26:02 PM »

Bugliosi says the holocaust was bad, that war is bad, etc.  Ok fine, but in denouncing genocide and war he has assumed the existence of evil.  But the existence of evil presupposes the existence of good.  So if good and evil exist, as Mr Bugliosi has implied, then logically there must be a standard by which we can differentiate between good and evil.  So Bugliosi, in making these statments, admits that there is a standard of good and evil.  My question is this: Outside of God - if there is no God - what is Mr. Bugliosi's philosophical basis for his moral system?  In other words, how can you have a standard without a standard giver?  How can you have a moral standard without a moral standard giver? 

Just like the tiny particle that allegedly exploded in the big bang, resulting in the physical space-time universe, I propose that this morality that Mr. Bugliosi has smuggled into his argument against God is the metaphysical partical that must still be explained.  What caused the physical particle before it exploded?  What caused the moral standard that causes Mr. Bugliosi to condemn the holocaust? 

(I think it is absolutely fascinating how physics and philosophy merge.  Good physicists are good philosophers and vice versa.) 

As to free will, there are verses in the Bible that clearly state God's providence, foreknowledge, and even pre-destination.  The hyper-Calvinists take off with this and run.  There are also verse that clearly indicate that man has free will.  God commanded Adam not to eat the fruit in the garden, but the gave him the choice of whether or not he would obey.  Adam decided not to obey and God honored his decision.  That is absolutely staggering if you think about it.  But of course God knew what would happen and the plan of salvation that the Bible presents is NOT plan B!  There freewill-predestination problem is a paradox that the human mind cannot understand within the constraints of space-time.  The spiritual realm, the third Heaven where God has His throne, is eternal and not bound by the laws of space-time.  I believe the paradox will be largely resolved once we are able to get outside of the constraints of space and time although we may not ever fully understand it, just like the Trinity (technically Triunity is a better word). 

I have a couple of articles that you may enjoy on my website that deal with these type of issues.  Click on my signature link, then go to 'Worldview'.  Actually the prophecy articles and even the Bible studies incorporate this type of thing.   
Logged

Dok
Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,716



WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2011, 01:29:20 PM »

good post...
Logged

HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship Wink
Amos
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,251


« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2011, 02:00:54 PM »

Bugliosi says the holocaust was bad, that war is bad, etc.  Ok fine, but in denouncing genocide and war he has assumed the existence of evil.  But the existence of evil presupposes the existence of good.  So if good and evil exist, as Mr Bugliosi has implied, then logically there must be a standard by which we can differentiate between good and evil.  So Bugliosi, in making these statments, admits that there is a standard of good and evil.  My question is this: Outside of God - if there is no God - what is Mr. Bugliosi's philosophical basis for his moral system?  In other words, how can you have a standard without a standard giver?  How can you have a moral standard without a moral standard giver? 

Just like the tiny particle that allegedly exploded in the big bang, resulting in the physical space-time universe, I propose that this morality that Mr. Bugliosi has smuggled into his argument against God is the metaphysical partical that must still be explained.  What caused the physical particle before it exploded?  What caused the moral standard that causes Mr. Bugliosi to condemn the holocaust? 

(I think it is absolutely fascinating how physics and philosophy merge.  Good physicists are good philosophers and vice versa.) 

As to free will, there are verses in the Bible that clearly state God's providence, foreknowledge, and even pre-destination.  The hyper-Calvinists take off with this and run.  There are also verse that clearly indicate that man has free will.  God commanded Adam not to eat the fruit in the garden, but the gave him the choice of whether or not he would obey.  Adam decided not to obey and God honored his decision.  That is absolutely staggering if you think about it.  But of course God knew what would happen and the plan of salvation that the Bible presents is NOT plan B!  There freewill-predestination problem is a paradox that the human mind cannot understand within the constraints of space-time.  The spiritual realm, the third Heaven where God has His throne, is eternal and not bound by the laws of space-time.  I believe the paradox will be largely resolved once we are able to get outside of the constraints of space and time although we may not ever fully understand it, just like the Trinity (technically Triunity is a better word). 

I have a couple of articles that you may enjoy on my website that deal with these type of issues.  Click on my signature link, then go to 'Worldview'.  Actually the prophecy articles and even the Bible studies incorporate this type of thing.   

Time is relative to our space, the constraints are completely natural, and evaluating reality outside of it is not our call and may even be dishonest in the final analysis, because understand is directly related to it. God did give us will in our time, it may not be free, but it is will.

but I like what you said
Logged
skeisler
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81



WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2011, 04:53:34 PM »

Yes time itself is a physical property.  Like the speed of light, time changes in accordance with mass and velocity.  Thus the starlight that appears to be 13 billion years old from our perspective in space-time, that same light at the very edges of the universe - the universe is not infinite but bound - would only appear to be a few thousand years old or even a few days old.  Additionally, I am not a uniformitarian.  Let me explain what I mean by that.  Many materialists and scientific naturalists subscribe to the idea of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system.  I don't have a problem with the uniformity of natural causes part.  That is, there are certain laws of physics in the natural universe which we can basically count on.  If you drop a penny off of the top of the Eiffel Tower, the law of gravity will cause the penny to accelerate towards the ground.  But I do reject the idea of a closed system - that the universe exists now as it always has.  In fact the doctrines of creation and the fall in the Bible clearly teach that creation now has been radically altered from its original state.  Furthermore, I am a supernaturalists, meaning I believe God can intervene in history and alter the laws of the universe as He sees fit.  Finally, the Bible says the Lord 'stretched' out the heavens, so literally God could have 'stretched' out the light between point A (a distant star) and point B (earth).    

My whole point is that my belief in Christianity is not a leap of faith.  I don't believe in spite of the evidence.  My Biblical, Judea-Christian worldview has an intellectual foundation that is quite formidable in the public market place of ideas.  I challenge people to hold their own intellectual positions to the same lofty standards that are expected of Christianity.  I welcome the accountability of course, but remove the plank from your own eye before you start obsessing over the speck of dust in my eye.    
Logged

skeisler
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81



WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2011, 04:55:12 PM »

Oh yea, Mr. Bugliosi may be a very good attorney, but his philosophy is not very impressive.  At least the interview I heard today left me with that impression. 
Logged

doctorparadox
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9



« Reply #5 on: May 12, 2011, 11:51:40 AM »

Bugliosi has based his rejection for God on one of the most weakest arguments. If their is no god then the universe is meaningless and if it is meaningless, life, death, good and evil are also meaningless. Bugliosi's must be intellectually lazy, he has totally looked over Christian Apologists, like C. S. Lewis who tackled the issue of evil. C. S. Lewis completely destroyed the, "evil is the reason for no god." How does Bugliosi also know God is not going to act, it just may not be in our time. If the Universe is billions of years old, it seems like God has long time frame.

Bugliosi was correct on Calvism, it is evil. He was absolutely wrong about Martin Luther. Luther said that we are spiritually dead. We can not spiritually redeem ourselves only God can convert us.

Vox Day's book The Irrational Atheist gives a very good example of God as a "video game programer." Day's book is the best, everyone should check it out.
Logged
skeisler
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81



WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2011, 03:01:02 PM »

Thanks for the feedback.  I can't say Bugliosi is intellectually lazy because I haven't read any of his work.  But the impression that I got from the interview is that he certainly wasn't going out of his way to bring up issues like these - issues that he certainly must be aware of if he wrote a book on the subject!  And if he isn't aware, then we can just laugh at the fact that he wrote a book.
Logged

doctorparadox
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9



« Reply #7 on: May 12, 2011, 08:27:50 PM »

Bugliosi was lazy on this one issue, everything else, especially that which is in his expertise, is probably highly intellectual. It's lazy because no one who seriously debates the God question brings up the "evil" card anymore. I do give Bugliosi credit that he's an agnostic and not an atheist. 

Check Vox Day's blog out... http://voxday.blogspot.com/ 

Day (and his ilk) easily talk over my head and repeatedly smack down Richard Dawkins groupies. Alex Jones really needs to have Vox Day on his show. Day is also an economics expert and Ron Paul supporter. 
Logged
skeisler
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81



WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 12, 2011, 09:05:59 PM »

Thanks.  I forgot about Vox, he used to write a little bid for WorldNetDaily, right? 
Logged

charrington
Guest
« Reply #9 on: May 12, 2011, 09:47:45 PM »

Bugliosi says the holocaust was bad, that war is bad, etc.  Ok fine, but in denouncing genocide and war he has assumed the existence of evil.  But the existence of evil presupposes the existence of good.  So if good and evil exist, as Mr Bugliosi has implied, then logically there must be a standard by which we can differentiate between good and evil.  So Bugliosi, in making these statments, admits that there is a standard of good and evil.  My question is this: Outside of God - if there is no God - what is Mr. Bugliosi's philosophical basis for his moral system?  In other words, how can you have a standard without a standard giver?  How can you have a moral standard without a moral standard giver?  
He's an attorney -- what do you think his standard is? The law... His comments on the show are out of frustration. He like the rest of mankind is sick and tired of being tired. He obviously thinks it's up to "men of good will" to make the laws needed to proclaim what is good and evil.

Unfortunately, he can't see that man has had thousands of years to try that and it's never worked. So here we are again, right back where we started.

Quote
Just like the tiny particle that allegedly exploded in the big bang, resulting in the physical space-time universe, I propose that this morality that Mr. Bugliosi has smuggled into his argument against God is the metaphysical partical that must still be explained.  What caused the physical particle before it exploded?  What caused the moral standard that causes Mr. Bugliosi to condemn the holocaust?  

(I think it is absolutely fascinating how physics and philosophy merge.  Good physicists are good philosophers and vice versa.)  

As to free will, there are verses in the Bible that clearly state God's providence, foreknowledge, and even pre-destination.  The hyper-Calvinists take off with this and run.  There are also verse that clearly indicate that man has free will.  God commanded Adam not to eat the fruit in the garden, but the gave him the choice of whether or not he would obey.  Adam decided not to obey and God honored his decision.  That is absolutely staggering if you think about it.  But of course God knew what would happen and the plan of salvation that the Bible presents is NOT plan B!  There freewill-predestination problem is a paradox that the human mind cannot understand within the constraints of space-time.  The spiritual realm, the third Heaven where God has His throne, is eternal and not bound by the laws of space-time.  I believe the paradox will be largely resolved once we are able to get outside of the constraints of space and time although we may not ever fully understand it, just like the Trinity (technically Triunity is a better word).

Or because people can't grasp just try and fill that void with whatever they feel fits. In this case the point Vincent was missing is the purpose of our creation. You could hear his frustration - and who hasn't felt frustrated in their life at one time or another?

Here's a guy that has faced and known more evil during his lifetime then most could in 3 or 4 life times. He saw perhaps one of the most Satanic crimes ever committed in modern days and didn't recognize it's origin.

I wonder if Alex had been able to give a solid answer in return if even that would have made him think about what he was saying.
 
Quote
I have a couple of articles that you may enjoy on my website that deal with these type of issues.  Click on my signature link, then go to 'Worldview'.  Actually the prophecy articles and even the Bible studies incorporate this type of thing.    
Logged
doctorparadox
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9



« Reply #10 on: May 13, 2011, 07:25:34 AM »

Thanks.  I forgot about Vox, he used to write a little bid for WorldNetDaily, right? 
Yea, his commentary is the only thing I can read on World Net Daily. You know, now that WND is a neo-con mouth piece for the war on sheer holy terror. You can get a copy of his book, The Irrational Atheist for free on his blog... http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf

I've emailed Infowars like crazy to for them to get Vox on the Alex Jones' Show, but I think those people are just to busy.
Logged
skeisler
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81



WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 13, 2011, 10:57:46 AM »

Just book-marked it.  Thanks!  I'll start reading it tonight.   Grin  I don't get why Farah is so obsessed with Limbaugh.  Well, yea I guess I do.  Business model, marketing...blah  But to be fair Farah was privy to Limbaugh's rise and so I think he is emotionally invested in some of the right-wing puppet media.  It's sad what's happened to WND. 
Logged

doctorparadox
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9



« Reply #12 on: May 14, 2011, 09:31:05 AM »

Just book-marked it.  Thanks!  I'll start reading it tonight.   Grin  I don't get why Farah is so obsessed with Limbaugh.  Well, yea I guess I do.  Business model, marketing...blah  But to be fair Farah was privy to Limbaugh's rise and so I think he is emotionally invested in some of the right-wing puppet media.  It's sad what's happened to WND. 

I think hubris is what happened to Farah. When Bush started his imperial wars, you'll notice a lot of the principled commentators (Sperry) who had called out Clinton's wars, then doing the same to Bush are no longer with WND. Farah claims to before the Constitution (states' rights), then slams Ron Paul and trumps Herman Cain, kind of a schizophrenic position. He suffers from rapture fanaticism and Israel worship, which bind him into giving full support to the "war a sheer holy terror." Farah is so filled with righteous indignation, I believe he would actually call for Armageddon.

I have written letters to the editor about their waffling and pointing out that our troops are fighting for world government, my letters become severally edited, to make it look like I'm taking a neo-conservative position. To me, Farah has made his choice and is now an enmey, which is a shame, because I used to have respect for the man. Ah.. Infowars and The New American are the best source of news.
Logged
charrington
Guest
« Reply #13 on: May 14, 2011, 10:57:59 AM »

I think hubris is what happened to Farah. When Bush started his imperial wars, you'll notice a lot of the principled commentators (Sperry) who had called out Clinton's wars, then doing the same to Bush are no longer with WND. Farah claims to before the Constitution (states' rights), then slams Ron Paul and trumps Herman Cain, kind of a schizophrenic position. He suffers from rapture fanaticism and Israel worship, which bind him into giving full support to the "war a sheer holy terror." Farah is so filled with righteous indignation, I believe he would actually call for Armageddon.
I agree with you. But I don't really think Farah has ever been trustworthy or honest, just another tool.

Quote
I have written letters to the editor about their waffling and pointing out that our troops are fighting for world government, my letters become severally edited, to make it look like I'm taking a neo-conservative position. To me, Farah has made his choice and is now an enmey, which is a shame, because I used to have respect for the man. Ah.. Infowars and The New American are the best source of news.
Logged
africknamerican
Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 318


Born "Truther"


« Reply #14 on: May 22, 2011, 05:18:13 PM »

Quote
Bugliosi says the holocaust was bad, that war is bad, etc.  ... what is Mr. Bugliosi's philosophical basis for his moral system?  In other words, how can you have a standard without a standard giver?  How can you have a moral standard without a moral standard giver? 


Good point, and one that most atheist or agnostic arguments miss.


It is true that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion: for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate and linked together it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.

 -- Francis Bacon



Bugliosi had some great and perceptive questions showing that a skeptical outsider can often  bring more of value to a discipline than the so-called experts. He is asking questions for which learned theologians long ago failed to produce meaningful answers. This is because the theologians long ago abandoned the actual Bible teaching in favor of "tradition"  -- some of it imported, as Bugliosi correctly noted, from paganism!

He is correct, that there is no way to square the biblical teachings of 1) a good God, who 2) takes the prerogative to "close" or "harden" hearts, with the also presumed Christian teachings of 3) an immortal soul and 4) eternal punishment for sinners.

If God has the power to open or close men's minds -- as the scripture undeniably says many times -- then it would hardly be right for him to then condemn the sinner to eternal punishment. After all, it wasn't his choice!

This is the dilemma for which "churchianity" has no solution. You have Calvinism -- which posits that God foreknows and predestines everything; there's no free will whatsoever; and God create billions of humans for the sole purpose of condemning them to hell! Of course, no human with God-given powers of reason and a God-given conscience can contemplate this for long, so Calvinism is a fertile field for producing agnostics and atheists.

The only tenable position is that If God is love, if he is all-knowing, and if he has the power to predestine or even influence man, he must have worked out a system for the salvation of all.

And wouldn't you know it -- this is exactly what the Bible teaches! It's just that the Bible never says that everyone is to be saved within this lifetime.

The Bible does not teach that immediately after this life, you enter into an eternal life of either punishment in hell or reward in heaven. As Bugliosi noted (but most theologians ignore or deny), the concept of inhernt immortality came from the pagans. The concept of an underworld place of torment and punishment where spirits go after they die came from the pagans. The pagan Roman church absorbed this concept and used it as a method of control through psychological terror.

The Bible does not teach this idea. From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible states over and over that man is a mortal soul. We live, we die, and we go to the grave. When the Bible was finally allowed to be translated into vernacular languages, the translators -- whether through ignorance or deliberate deceit -- mistranslated the word for grave (in the Old Testament, Heb. sheol; in the NT, Greek hades) into "hell" --  and then continued to teach the corrupt, paganized "hell" concept as a place of fire and torment under the earth. This actually was a fusion of the Greek underworld myth, with some completely unrelated concepts from elsewhere in scripture (such as the obviously symbolic "Lake of Fire" in Revelation).

So, the Church of England, for instance, got to hang onto its lever of manipulation and spiritual control of its subjects by threatening them with eternal damnation if they disobeyed the king and his minions. (At least the papists do allow for middle states such as "limbo" or purgatory, where it's possible to pay off your sins after death -- or have the living pay off your sins via cash indulgences, penances, prayers, etc.; the corrupt Protestant daughters of Rome eliminated limbo, leaving the unsaved dead with absolutely no hope! Just get ready to be Satan's barbecue forever and ever. )

The fact is, the scriptures say that man is immortal. He exists as long as he has the breath of life. When that leaves him, he turns cold, goes into the grave, and turns to dust.

The only hope in scripture for an afterlife is in the resurrection. The Creator who made us will re-make us, and raise us back to life. If he does not do this, we have no hope of life after death. This does not happen immediately after death, at least if you read the Bible literally. It occurs at a date that is yet future. So, nobody at this moment is in either heaven or some imagined fiery hell.

Not only that, the Bible clearly shows that God has never attempted, and is not now attempting, to save the entire world. If he intended to do so, he would succeed. The Bible shows that only a few are called now. The time for the salvation of the many will be in the resurrection. People can see Ezekiel 37, for starters.

God has a plan; it is perfect, it is right on schedule, and it is for the good of all the creation. It involves different stages for different people. And, evil is one of the essential tools for its fulfillment.

One of the best expositions of this that I have come across is in Russell's The Divine Plan of the Ages. I might not agree with all of the prophetic speculation, but this book does a masterful job of truthfully expounding the scriptures and showing you the wisdom of this plan.

Also from Russell and the Bible Students, see What Say the Scriptures Concerning Hell? It runs down every scriptural instance of every word commonly translated "hell," and totally disproves the old Roman/Greek pagan concept of eternal torment in a fiery pit in inner earth. Also, it offers scriptural proof of the mortality of the soul and the need for a resurrection in the future -- and also discusses what takes place during that resurrection.

Note, Charles Taze Russell was not a Jehovah's Witness; he was a founder of the movemnt which after his death, was taken over by a follower and became the Watchtower, aka Jehovah's Witnesses.

For a briefer biblical treatment of why God allows evil and how it fits into his plan, see Oh God, Where Were You When I Needed You? by Garner Ted Armstrong. He gives a credible explanation within the framework of biblical literalism.

Caution: Armstrong was a serial adulterer who completely discredited himself and his ministry through his behavior. (I know, I was a member of his church and met him on several occasions.) However, he was a good Bible teacher and writer; unfortunately, charisma and communication abilities, and even knowing the Bible really well, do not guarantee that one is going to live it. Those of us who've been through the organized-church mill have learned the lessons of belonging to religious organizations which give too much power, without accountability, to one man or a few men.

Also: Do We Have an Immortal Soul?

These answers only speak to what the Bible says in its literal text. If people reading this happen to be Roman Catholics or of some other sect who says that "anointed" human leaders get to manufacture the truth, then what the Bible says may be of little import to them. However, the context of this discussion was that Bugliosi ws referencing alleged problems in the Bible, so that's what I'm sticking to.

Also note, GTA's work assumes the existence of a personal devil, which people can dispute (you can say Satan is just a "principle" or a "force" or whatever), but the practical effect of evil is the same, and God's plan remains the same, whether Satan is a person who's real or a symbol of something else that's still very real.

Of course, if you accept what the Bible says -- that there is no conscious soul that survives death -- then you have to explain ghosts or other alleged communication with the dead, and so-called "near-death experiences." Actually, the Bible itself shows at least one example where a medium called up a ghost. The serpent told Eve from day one that she would not surely die, so he is still wanting to tell us there's no death and that we have inherent immortal life without God's intervention. Ghosts could be a part of that deception. 

Near-death experiences can be explained as hallucinations that are common in certain conditions, and I myself had a dream about flying to a light and a tunnel, very similiar to NDEs, and I was not near death!



Logged
africknamerican
Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 318


Born "Truther"


« Reply #15 on: May 22, 2011, 06:23:43 PM »



 Corrected link:
What Say the Scriptures Concerning Hell?
Logged
africknamerican
Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 318


Born "Truther"


« Reply #16 on: May 22, 2011, 06:52:24 PM »

This link will work: The Divine Plan of the Ages


AS some ignorantly misjudge the skill and wisdom of a great architect and builder by his unfinished work, also many in their ignorance now misjudge God by his work; but by and by, when the rough scaffolding of evil which has been permitted for man's discipline, which shall finally be overruled for his good, has been removed and the rubbish cleared away, God's finished work will universally declare his infinite wisdom and power; and his plans will be seen to be in harmony with his glorious character.

 Since God tells us that he has a definitely fixed purpose, and that all his purposes shall be accomplished, it behooves us, as his children, to inquire diligently what those plans are, that we may be found in harmony with them. Notice how emphatically Jehovah affirms the fixedness of his purpose: "Jehovah of hosts hath sworn saying, Surely as I have thought so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it be."  "The Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it?" "I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me  . . . My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure; Yea I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it. (Isa 14:24-27; 46:9 -11.) Therefore, however hap-hazard or mysterious God's dealings with men may appear, those who believe this testimony of his Word must acknowledge that his original and unalterable plan has been, and still is, progressing systematically to completion.
Logged
africknamerican
Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 318


Born "Truther"


« Reply #17 on: May 23, 2011, 12:47:09 PM »


Not only that, the Bible clearly shows that God has never attempted, and is not now attempting, to save the entire world. If he intended to do so, he would succeed. The Bible shows that only a few are called now. The time for the salvation of the many will be in the resurrection. ...


And I should add (to go out on a limb) : We Christians very well might be surprised to awaken in the First Resurrection and find ourselves joined by people who were not "Christians" as we know the term. We very well might find ourselves joined by people who never heard the name Jesus Christ but who had an encounter with God, and believed in him, under another name, and repented of their sins according to whatever light he chose to give them.
 
But in any case, God will see to it that his will is done and that mankind, whom he created in his image, is not eternally "lost."
Logged
africknamerican
Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 318


Born "Truther"


« Reply #18 on: May 24, 2011, 08:09:25 PM »

I'm having trouble with the pdf version, so here is an HTML version of Oh God, Where Were You When I Needed You?
Logged
WakeUpAmerica
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 911


« Reply #19 on: June 01, 2011, 10:56:48 PM »

Yes time itself is a physical property.  Like the speed of light, time changes in accordance with mass and velocity.  Thus the starlight that appears to be 13 billion years old from our perspective in space-time, that same light at the very edges of the universe - the universe is not infinite but bound - would only appear to be a few thousand years old or even a few days old.  Additionally, I am not a uniformitarian.  Let me explain what I mean by that.  Many materialists and scientific naturalists subscribe to the idea of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system.  I don't have a problem with the uniformity of natural causes part.  That is, there are certain laws of physics in the natural universe which we can basically count on.  If you drop a penny off of the top of the Eiffel Tower, the law of gravity will cause the penny to accelerate towards the ground.  But I do reject the idea of a closed system - that the universe exists now as it always has.  In fact the doctrines of creation and the fall in the Bible clearly teach that creation now has been radically altered from its original state.  Furthermore, I am a supernaturalists, meaning I believe God can intervene in history and alter the laws of the universe as He sees fit.  Finally, the Bible says the Lord 'stretched' out the heavens, so literally God could have 'stretched' out the light between point A (a distant star) and point B (earth).    

My whole point is that my belief in Christianity is not a leap of faith.  I don't believe in spite of the evidence.  My Biblical, Judea-Christian worldview has an intellectual foundation that is quite formidable in the public market place of ideas.  I challenge people to hold their own intellectual positions to the same lofty standards that are expected of Christianity.  I welcome the accountability of course, but remove the plank from your own eye before you start obsessing over the speck of dust in my eye.    
Do you have any proof that the universe is "bound" as you put it? Are you speaking of the theoretical boundaries imposed in theoretical physics and cosmology? If so, that is artificial and done only for calculation. The closed system argument isn't valid whenever anyone makes it because, like it or not, there is scientific evidence showing the reality of "supernatural" events. In reality, there is no such thing as "supernatural". Nature is an all-encompassing term. Nature includes God, God intervening in history is therefore natural, not supernatural. Not to mention the closed system argument can easily be used to refute evolution and most people who argue with the closed system fallacy believe in full-on macro-evolution. I've actually used that logical progression to refute the closed system argument and it usually pisses off the person quite a bit as people don't like proving themselves wrong.

I honestly don't see how any intelligent human being can see the order in the universe, and reflect on the ability to see and appreciate this order at the micro and macro levels, without seeing God. How can you look at evolution and not see God? How can you look at the patterns of the bronchial vascular system, lightning, cracks in rock, and ink drops in water without wondering how a purely random, creator-less world would have such remarkable order from the smallest levels all the way to the spirals of galaxies.
Logged
charrington
Guest
« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2011, 07:57:53 AM »


And I should add (to go out on a limb) : We Christians very well might be surprised to awaken in the First Resurrection and find ourselves joined by people who were not "Christians" as we know the term. We very well might find ourselves joined by people who never heard the name Jesus Christ but who had an encounter with God, and believed in him, under another name, and repented of their sins according to whatever light he chose to give them.
 
But in any case, God will see to it that his will is done and that mankind, whom he created in his image, is not eternally "lost."

Some of mankind at any rate -- (to go further out on that limb) the righteous and the unrighteous -
Logged
africknamerican
Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 318


Born "Truther"


« Reply #21 on: June 10, 2011, 01:21:23 PM »

Some of mankind at any rate -- (to go further out on that limb) the righteous and the unrighteous -


Well there are several scriptures that indicate universalism, such as "God will have all men to be saved," that Christ will bring all men to him, will become "all in all," etc. I suppose the word "all" could be used in a general sense, but I think at least it indicates that the vast majority will be saved. 
Logged
charrington
Guest
« Reply #22 on: June 10, 2011, 02:03:56 PM »


Well there are several scriptures that indicate universalism, such as "God will have all men to be saved," that Christ will bring all men to him, will become "all in all," etc. I suppose the word "all" could be used in a general sense, but I think at least it indicates that the vast majority will be saved. 
I disagree - few will pass through the narrow gate and many will say in that day lord etc and he says get away from me.

No I'd say very few will be saved in the last days - the resurrection will bring back many I'm sure.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!